1
   

IMPORTANT! Sen. Daschle: Abuse of Government Power

 
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 12:01 pm
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Floor Statement of Sen. Daschle on the Abuse of Government Power

Mr. President, last week I spoke about the White House's reaction to Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9-11 Commission. I am compelled to rise again today, because the people around the President are systematically abusing the powers and prerogatives of government.

We all need to reflect seriously on what's going on. Not in anger and not in partisanship, but in keeping with our responsibilities as Senators and with an abiding respect for the fundamental values of our democracy.

Richard Clarke did something extraordinary when he testified before the 9-11 Commission last week. He didn't try to escape blame, as so many routinely do. Instead, he accepted his share of responsibility and offered his perceptions about what happened in the months and years leading up to September 11.

We can and should debate the facts and interpretations Clarke has offered. But there can be no doubt that he has risked enormous damage to his reputation and professional future to hold both himself and our government accountable.

The retaliation from those around the President has been fierce. Mr. Clarke's personal motives have been questioned and his honesty challenged. He has even been accused, right here on the Senate floor, of perjury. Not one shred of proof was given, but that wasn't the point. The point was to have the perjury accusation on television and in the newspapers. The point was to damage Mr. Clarke in any way possible.

This is wrong-and it's not the first time it's happened.

When Senator McCain ran for President, the Bush campaign smeared him and his family with vicious, false attacks. When Max Cleland ran for reelection to this Senate, his patriotism was attacked. He was accused of not caring about protecting our nation -- a man who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, accused of being indifferent to America's national security. That was such an ugly lie, it's still hard to fathom almost two years later.

There are some things that simply ought not be done - even in politics. Too many people around the President seem not to understand that, and that line has been crossed. When Ambassador Joe Wilson told the truth about the Administration's misleading claims about Iraq, Niger, and uranium, the people around the President didn't respond with facts. Instead, they publicly disclosed that Ambassador Wilson's wife was a deep-cover CIA agent. In doing so, they undermined America's national security and put politics first. They also may well have put the lives of Ambassador Wilson's wife, and her sources, in danger.

When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed that the White House was thinking about an Iraq War in its first weeks in office, his former colleagues in the Bush Administration ridiculed him from morning to night, and even subjected him to a fruitless federal investigation.

When Larry Lindsay, one of President Bush's former top economic advisors, and General Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff, spoke honestly about the amount of money and the number of troops the war would demand, they learned the hard way that the White House doesn't tolerate candor.

This is not "politics as usual." In nearly all of these cases, it's not Democrats who are being attacked.

Senator McCain and Secretary O'Neill are prominent Republicans, and Richard Clarke, Larry Lindsay, Joe Wilson, and Eric Shinseki all worked for Republican Administrations.

The common denominator is that these government officials said things the White House didn't want said.

The response from those around the President was retribution and character assassination -- a 21st Century twist to the strategy of "shooting the messenger."

If it takes intimidation to keep inconvenient facts from the American people, the people around the President don't hesitate. Richard Foster, the chief actuary for Medicare, found that out. He was told he'd be fired if he told the truth about the cost of the Administration's prescription drug plan.

This is no way to run a government.

The White House and its supporters should not be using the power of government to try to conceal facts from the American people or to reshape history in an effort to portray themselves in the best light.

They should not be threatening the reputations and livelihoods of people simply for asking - or answering - questions. They should seek to put all information about past decisions on the table for evaluation so that the best possible decisions can be made for the nation's future.

In Mr. Clarke's case, clear and troubling double standards are being applied.

Last year, when the Administration was being criticized for the President's misleading statement about Niger and uranium, the White House unexpectedly declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate. When the Administration wants to bolster its public case, there is little that appears too sensitive to be declassified.

Now, people around the President want to release parts of Mr. Clarke's earlier testimony in 2002. According to news reports, the CIA is already working on declassifying that testimony - at the Administration's request.

And last week several documents were declassified literally overnight, not in an effort to provide information on a pressing policy matter to the American people, but in an apparent effort to discredit a public servant who gave 30 years of service to his American government.

I'll support declassifying Mr. Clarke's testimony before the Joint Inquiry, but the Administration shouldn't be selective. Consistent with our need to protect sources and methods, we should declassify his entire testimony.

And to make sure that the American people have access to the full record as they consider this question, we should also declassify his January 25 memo to Dr. Rice, the September 4, 2001 National Security Directive dealing with terrorism, Dr. Rice's testimony to the 9-11 Commission, the still-classified 28 pages from the House-Senate inquiry relating to Saudi Arabia, and a list of the dates and topics of all National Security Council meetings before September 4, 2001.

I hope this new interest in openness will also include the Vice President's Energy and Terrorism Task Forces. While much, if not all, of what these task forces discussed was unclassified, their proceedings have not been shared with the public.

There also seems to be a double standard when it comes to investigations.

In recent days leading congressional Republicans are now calling for an investigation into Mr. Clarke. As I mentioned earlier, Secretary O'Neill was also subjected to an investigation. Clarke and O'Neill sought legal and classification review of any information in their books before they were published.

Nonetheless, our colleagues tell us these two should be investigated, at the same time there has been no Senate investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a deep cover CIA agent; no thorough investigation into whether leading Administration officials misrepresented the intelligence regarding threats posed by Iraq; no Senate hearings into the threat the chief Medicare Actuary faced for trying to do his job; and no Senate investigation into the reports of continued overcharging by Halliburton for its work in Iraq.

There is a clear double standard when it comes to investigating or releasing information, and that's just is not right. The American people deserve more from their leaders.

We're seeing it again now in the shifting reasons the White House has given for Dr. Rice's refusal to testify under oath and publicly before the 9-11 Commission.

The people around the President first said it would be unprecedented for Dr. Rice to testify. But thanks to the Congressional Research Service, we now know that previous sitting National Security Advisors have testified before Congress.

Now the people around the President are saying that Dr. Rice can't testify because it would violate an important constitutional principle: the separation of powers.

We will soon face this debate again when it comes time for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to meet with the 9-11 Commission. I believe they should lift the limitations they have placed on their cooperation with the Commission and be willing to appear before the entire Commission for as much time as the Commission deems productive.

The all-out assault on Richard Clarke has gone on for more than a week now. Mr. Clarke has been accused of "profiteering" and possible perjury. It is time for this to stop.

The Commission should declassify Mr. Clarke's earlier testimony. All of it. Not just the parts the White House wants. And Dr. Rice should testify before the 9-11 Commission, and she should be under oath and in public.

The American people deserve to know the truth -- the full truth -- about what happened in the years and months leading up to September 11.

Senator McCain, Senator Cleland, Secretary O'Neill, Ambassador Wilson, General Shinseki, Richard Foster, Richard Clarke, Larry Lindsay ... when will the character assassination, retribution, and intimidation end?

When will we say enough is enough?

The September 11 families - and our entire country - deserve better. Our democracy depends on it. And our nation's future security depends on it.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,022 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 12:07 pm
Bush's abuse of power worse than Nixon's
I consider the Bush's Administration's abuse of power worse than that of Richard Nixon. And we don't even know the full extent of their abuse yet.

A word to the wise: Powerful people are the most dangerous when their power is threatened.

BBB
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 12:09 pm
If they have it their way (i.e.: secrecy rules, etc...) we never will.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 12:17 pm
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 12:23 pm
Ridiculous.

Quote:
Richard Clarke did something extraordinary when he testified before the 9-11 Commission last week. He didn't try to escape blame, as so many routinely do. Instead, he accepted his share of responsibility and offered his perceptions about what happened in the months and years leading up to September 11.

And while he was doing that, he accused the current administration of negligence. Oh, and by the way, promoted his new book. No realistic person could expect the administration not to respond to his lies.

Quote:
Mr. Clarke's personal motives have been questioned and his honesty challenged. He has even been accused, right here on the Senate floor, of perjury.

How is that the President's fault?

Quote:
Senator McCain and Secretary O'Neill are prominent Republicans, and Richard Clarke, Larry Lindsay, Joe Wilson, and Eric Shinseki all worked for Republican Administrations.

I'm glad he didn't call Clarke a Republican (since he voted for algore in the last election).

Quote:
The response from those around the President was retribution and character assassination -- a 21st Century twist to the strategy of "shooting the messenger."

In Clarke's case, at least, the administration has responded with facts (see Colin Powell's interview in the "All Things Clarke" thread). I don't know about the other cases.

Quote:
The White House and its supporters should not be using the power of government to try to conceal facts from the American people or to reshape history in an effort to portray themselves in the best light.

He should have applied his earlier quote to that statement:

Quote:
Not one shred of proof was given, but that wasn't the point. The point was to have the [concealment] accusation on television and in the newspapers.


Quote:
In recent days leading congressional Republicans are now calling for an investigation into Mr. Clarke.

So what? Democrats are always demanding an investigation any time someone sneezes. Isn't the 9-11 Commission itself the result of a Democrat demand for an investigation to make the administration look bad? Why is this a big deal to Daschle?

Most of this is just partisan politics as usual. I wouldn't classify it as "IMPORTANT!" by any means.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 01:15 pm
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 01:28 pm
From Tom Daschle's words:
Quote:
The retaliation from those around the President has been fierce. Mr. Clarke's personal motives have been questioned and his honesty challenged. He has even been accused, right here on the Senate floor, of perjury. Not one shred of proof was given, but that wasn't the point. The point was to have the perjury accusation on television and in the newspapers. The point was to damage Mr. Clarke in any way possible.


Here Senator Daschle makes damning assumptions about the motives of those who question Clarke's testimony. But then Senator Daschle has a pattern of casting aspersons on the character of any who oppose his chosen point of view, and sees nothing wrong when others do it as well:

Quoted from a column by Ron Marr:
Quote:
"I am bothered by something else. I am bothered by the hypocrisy of such as Gore and Daschle, particularly the latter. Daschle went so far as to link the violent fundamentalism seen in other countries to the "shrill tone" of "Rush Limbaugh and all the Rush wannabes."

Since I fall into that latter category, I've a few questions for Senator Daschle. Why sir, if you are so concerned about shrill tones in the media, and the menace they pose to public figures, were you utterly silent when the following statements were made by liberals?

Why, Senator, did you remain silent when producer Spike Lee said the solution to gun violence was to "shoot Charlton Heston with a .44 Bulldog."

Why Senator, did you remain silent when actor Alec Baldwin publicly called for "the stoning" of Henry Hyde during the Lewinsky scandal?

Why, Senator, did you remain silent when Richard Gephardt called Newt Gingrich and his supporters "trickle down terrorists who base their agenda on division, exclusion and fear."

Why Senator, did you remain silent when James Carville said that Ken Starr was "one mistake away from not having any kneecaps." For that
matter, why did you keep silent when Carville referred to Paula Jones with the comment "you drag $100 bills through trailer parks and
there's no telling what you'll find."

Why, Senator, did you remain silent when NPR's Sunni Khalid said that Newt Gingrich was "looking at a more scientific, a more civil way of lynching people."

Why, Senator, did you remain silent when columnist Julianne Malveaux said "I hope Clarence Thomas's wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early, like many black men do, because of heart disease. He is an utterly reprehensible person."

And why Senator, did you remain silent when Clinton advisor Paul Begala, in the wake of Al Gore's 2000 election loss, explained the famous "red and blue map" (with "red" indicating counties that voted Republican) in the following manner. "You see the state where James Byrd was lynch-dragged behind a pickup truck until his body came apart? It's red. You see the state where Matthew Shepherd was crucified on a split-rail fence for the crime of being gay? It's red.
You see the state where right-wing extremists blew up a federal office building and murdered scores of federal employees? It's red."

Why, Senator, did you remain silent when in fact YOUR state was primarily "red." Do you believe that the aforementioned words were less an incitement to violence than Limbaugh's criticism of your legislative proposals? Do you not view these statements as "shrill rhetoric," or were they fitting and proper because they arose from
Democrats?"


What's good for the goose yadda yadda......

The people criticizing Clarke's testimony are people who were there. They say it was not the way Clarke is saying it. Is there no possibility at all that they are right? And if they are, are they not supposed to say so?

Sheesh!!!!
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 01:41 pm
"The retaliation from those around the President has been fierce. Mr. Clarke's personal motives have been questioned and his honesty challenged. He has even been accused, right here on the Senate floor, of perjury. Not one shred of proof was given, but that wasn't the point. The point was to have the perjury accusation on television and in the newspapers. The point was to damage Mr. Clarke in any way possible."

LOL!!!

The Republicans started using the word "perjury" ad nauseum during the failed GOP effort to remove President Clinton from office back in 98' for lying about oral sex.

They must find a new noun to toss about.
[/color]
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 01:52 pm
Quote:

I thought she was from Portland? Confused
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 01:52 pm
"The people criticizing Clarke's testimony are people who were there." foxfyre

LOL!!!

Funny thing is, anyone who leaves the nest and then dares to speak or write negatively about King George are made to suffer attacks from the Bush White House smear machine.

Ranging from the benign (he wasn't there) to the scurrilous (he's insane), a few of these Bush White House victims include:

Anthony Zinni

Lawrence Lindsey

Paul O'Neill

And most recently, Richard A. Clarke.

Ah huh. :wink:
[/color]
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 01:53 pm
Maybe Daschle can explain what the point was with this one:

"Ken Starr has become a campaign manager, not an investigator"

He should have no problem explaining it since the words came straight out of Daschle's own mouth in June 1998.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 01:54 pm
Dashcle does suffer from the blackened pot conversing with le kettle noir, syndrome.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 05:06 pm
The list is actually longer than that
Titus wrote:
Ranging from the benign (he wasn't there) to the scurrilous (he's insane), a few of these Bush White House victims include:

Anthony Zinni

Lawrence Lindsey

Paul O'Neill

And most recently, Richard A. Clarke.


There's a few moreyou didn't mention, Tite, only because it's so hard to keep up.

You left out General Eric Shinseki, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, Richard Foster (the Medicare accountant who said he was forbidden by his superiors from sharing with Congress a higher -- and more accurate -- cost estimate for the administration's Medicare program), and John DiIulio.

And we shouldn't forget James Hatfield, who killed himself (???) after publishing many of the things in 1999 that we are finally talking about today.

...or Robert Parry, who was fired from Newsweek and blacklisted for blowing the whistle on Iran-Contra.

...or Greg Palast, who called the Bushes on the buried-alive murders of the Barrick miners.

...or Clifford Baxter, whose death was ruled a suicide before the medical examiner even saw the body.

This administration counts like Enron and manages like the Sopranos.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » IMPORTANT! Sen. Daschle: Abuse of Government Power
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/09/2025 at 04:07:02